that is not the point d3xmeister was making. he thinks that set actuall matches the performance of the FX set,

No, he never says it matches, he says it is close enough for him.

then why pick better performing FX set?

And that is the point you apparently cannot accept: that something which you think is clearly different could be considered by others as close enough.

I can accept people find certain performance level acceptable, in fact it is based on that very premesis I say FX lenses can be cheaper.

But if as you say these listed lenses are enough, then it should be even cheaper to use Sigma EX 17-35 2.8-4, nikon 24-85 G, 50 F1.8 D and 70-300G.

Well, I don't know whether the Sigma 17-35 mm f/2.8-4 is better or worse than the Tokina 11-16 mm.

It is better, because image circle is larger the resulting image has much more detail, a native strength of being FX.

The only thing I can say that I have repeatedly seen people saying they really like the output of the 11-16 mm, which I have not seen for the Sigma (but if you have a lens test showing that, I am fully accepting that).

I have used the 11-16 extensively, it has nice IQ but terrible AF. What you have to remember is 11-16 is compared against other DX lenses, all of which are slower and many are less sharp. But when compared to FX lens it is very difficultfor 11-16 to beat them on total resolution and speed.

The used prices for the Sigma seem to be about $250 cheaper than the used prices for the Tokina. Which makes the DX lens set still to come out a bit cheaper and $800 body price difference for DX remains.

But it still boils down to that some people just prefer to buy new. And while you might consider them to be irrational fools, there are some, probably hard to quantify, advantages when buying new.

No i do not consider them irrational fools. But if we must add "buy new" requirement to our comparison we are keep making conditions more perculiar. Why would someone want to buy so many different lenses but all of the cheapest kind and all new?

You are right, the FF lenses are probably all better but they are not cheaper. Which comes back to very first sentence I added to this thread: FX is more expensive but also better.

they are cheaper if you want the same IQ. 18-35, 24-85VR, 70-300 VR are not it. they provide better IQ.

The lens set you just suggested above is not cheaper.

Sigma EX 17-35 2.8-4, nikon 24-85 G, 50 F1.8 D and 70-300G.

the tamon 17-50 is a much weaker lens compared to 17-55 (ackknowledging it is a better deal) its IQ at F2.8 is weak and its AF is inconsistent and its motor is a conventional micro-motor.

The question is rather why you repeatedly pretend that the other party has not answered your question. What was the purpose to insinuate that d3xmeister had ruled out the 17-55 mm without presenting an alternative if had just done so a few lines earlier?

The point is, 17-55 is nikon's best offering at that zoom range , it is outperformed by the much cheaper 24-85 VR on FX. anything other than 17-55 will do even worse compared to 24-85 VR on FX.

An old 24-85G is sufficient to beat likes of 17-50VC.

You clearly accuse d3xmeister and me of pretty much the same things, it stands to reason that if you then describe one of us as a fanboy that you feel pretty much the same about the other.

I did not accuse you and d3x of the same thing. did I say you were a fanboy. just because you sing the same tune doesnt mean you are from the town.

No, but you pretty said that anyone who claims that FX lenses are more expensive than DX lenses using the kind of examples and arguments that d3xmeister and me have used is a DX fanboy.

No i did not. give it a rest, no need to insist that you have earned the badge of fanboy.